The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

My last reply to MrID's message was posted prematurely and unintentionally. This is how that reply was supposed to be. Next time, you might want to try something that you might find very novel: read it. For one thing, you might actually learn something -- try it some time; you might even grow to like learning. At the very least it can serve as an example of writing that is not gibberish, something that you could use to improve your own sorry attempts at writing.But of course you would never do that, being terminally and willfully stupid, so my replies are not for your benefit (though they could be if not for your willful stupidity). Pearls cast before swine, but then, as a typical Christian, you know nothing of what the Bible says, do you?Rather, we also post for the lurkers. Or "visitors". At the moment that I am writing this, 7 members are present in this forum, while 54 visitors are also present. They can see what I post as well as what you post. They can see your nonsense as well as my own reasonable postings.One of the shams of creationism is their "creation/evolution debates" which are rigged to favor the creationist in so many ways -- refer to my page, Creation / Evolution Debates, for a more complete discussion and links to articles on the subject. Because of the gross dishonesty of the debate format as well as of the creationists, the common wisdom is to not participate, but one professor looks forward to them. He sees them as a teaching opportunity so, even though creationists would ignore what he's saying, there are many in the audience who will be able to learn. Besides, when he teaches evolutionary biology in the classroom it's to students who can barely stay awake let alone pay attention, but in a debate he has an auditorium filled with people who are listening intently to every word he's saying. What educator could pass up such an opportunity?BTW, MrID is "replying" (ie, with a non-reply) to my Message 165. If you follow that link, you will read for yourself what MrID is frantically ignoring. Oh, I do have many questions about your "new ID", but you persist in refusing to explain it.Why do you refuse to answer our questions? What are you trying to hide? I read the abstract, or at least tried to. It was not only complete gibberish, but its information content was almost zero. Indeed, the only information that it conveyed was that the 38 pages of the "article" was written in the same fashion: complete gibberish containing no information. Trying to read the article would be worse than a total waste of time.You keep ignoring your worst problem: everything you write is gibberish. Nobody ever reads it (at least past the first attempt).Nobody ever chooses to try to read gibberish.Nobody has ever attempted to read the gibberish trash that you had "published". Except for the few who now complain of brain damage incurred by that effort. What the hell are you trying to say? It's statements like this which informs us that you are afflicted with gross misunderstanding of evolution, a problem you share with so many other creationists.You may as well have asked any of the following:

• "Did you compare reality to the Theory of Universal Gravitation?"
• "Did you compare reality to Ohm's Law?"
• "Did you compare reality to Boyle's Law?"

How much sense did those versions of your question make? None whatsoever. For the same reason that your original question makes no sense.And frankly, it would help to dispell your great confusion if you were to learn what evolution actually is. Not that you would ever try to learn, since you creationists make your faith dependent on lies and deception which would be exposed for what they are by learning what evolution actually is.Also, it would serve you well to learn something about science. For example, as I explained to you (and you ignored) in my Message 165: So we make observations of reality and then use those observations to develop laws, hypotheses, and theories to describe and explain our observations. A theory is a conceptual model of what we observe. A theory never replaces reality, but rather helps us to understand reality.MrID, please stop refusing to learn.

I'm also curious about that term, "phylogenetic signal".Would this be related to Aron Ra's "Phylogeny Challenge" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r0zpk0lPFU)? In that video he explores several branches of the phylogenetic tree of life, showing how they all tie together. That is to say that by examining the evidence we can clearly and unarguably see that they're all inter-related.The challenge itself to creationists is for them to support their position that that "tree of life" contains insurmountable barriers between the various "basic created kinds". They claim that the "tree of life" is instead an orchard of separate "trees" (ie, each representing a different and separate "basic created kind") which are distinctly separate from each other, so where do we see that pattern in the evidence? We don't! But if there were any validity to "basic created kinds" then we should be able to see that in the evidence and creationists should be able to point out the necessary patterns in the evidence. They can't!MrID even created an entire topic, All About Biblical Kinds, in which only the OP (Message 1) even tries to make a token attempt to stick to the topic. But even then, all he does is bitch and moan about Aron Ra having put a lot of work into his Phylogeny Project while MrID rebels against the very idea that he would need to do his homework. Other than that, he praises Donald Trump (who's apparently MrID's role model -- malignant narcissist, "fucking moron", declares himself a genius despite his own severe ignorance, makes many sweeping promises that he never delivers on *, etc) and Marjorie "Three Toes" (AKA "Marjorie Three Names", "Marjorie Three Toes", "QAnon Betty", "Queen Gazpacho", "The Mayor of Crazy-ville"). 

---

* FOOTNOTE:

Nope, that's not it at all.We have not changed anything about how we deal with creationists. You've got a claim to make, so make it! And support it! It's really as simple as that.You make claims that are not based on anything at all except for a gross misunderstanding of science. OK, so we expect you to support your claim, which you steadfastly refuse to do. So we have to hold your feet to the fire in order to keep you honest and you instead walk away bitching and moaning about how you've been mistreated.OK, everything you've presented tells us that you have nothing. So what you need to do is to try to build an actual case. Of course you won't even try to build an actual case, which tells us that you have no case to build. If you think that our conclusion is wrong, then you need to present an actual case that would change our minds. Which you never do!You want us to take you seriously? So present us with something that we can consider seriously. Until you do that, you are and will always be nothing but a joke.So do you want to be taken seriously? Or do you want to be nothing but a joke? It's up to you.

I'm watching an OLLI lecture by a retired archaeology professor.She just referenced to an article from Nature and remarked that it is very difficult to get an article published. She cites their very rigorous review process which is more rigorous than that of many other journals. As long as you're being considered (assuming you get that far), it's a long process of requests for more information, requests to rewrite portions, etc. And in the end very few of the articles submitted ever survive that process and get published -- which is what helps to make it one of the top scientific publications (if they just published any drivel sent to them then they'd be no better that the National Inquirer, useless to anybody except for the MiB).MrID would never survive any stage of that process. Even if he could get past the initial stage, I shudder to think of how the dialogue between him and the editor would go through the long process of providing more information, doing requested rewriting, etc: IOW, the exact same crap that he's been pulling here. The zebra cannot change its stripes.

And he also needs to learn how to string together coherent thoughts. That'll take much more than only one decade to learn.

We'll have to see that to believe it. We looked at your latest attempt. Not only did you not falsify evolution, but you didn't even address it. You didn't get anywhere close to evolution.You want to claim that you falsified evolution? You have to at least make an honest attempt at it. We're still waiting.

Weasel!Stop hiding behind gibberish. Do what you state that you intend to do or else admit that you are lying about your intentions. American colloquialism: "Either shit or get off the pot."Your evasiveness is very tiring.

And you report that that entire evolution lasted just four days!:

quote:

---

SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW
(from March 7-10 2022)

​

As a usual ideal process in science, I sent and submitted this science article in three major science journals, but they rejected me.

---

FOUR DAYS! (assuming that we can include the two endpoints of the interval you yourself reported) That's not even enough time for mail delivery of the submission and of the responding rejection letters in the postal system! No time was allowed for them to process receipt of your submissions, for anyone to attempt to read your submissions and then for them to compose and process their response (your rejection letter). FOUR DAYS!If you actually believe that that entire evolution should have happened instantaneously, then you are an even bigger (or "biglier") fool than you have already proven to be. 
So now tell us, what did they say in those rejection letters that you received? None of your usual bullshit, please. Just tell us quoting directly from those letters.

Wait, WHAT?Now you're saying that they did not receive your submission? And you are claiming that they rejected your submission?Get your story straight!

Standard academic advice on giving snow jobs:

quote:

---

If you cannot blind them with your brilliance, then baffle them with your bullshit.

---

Mr. "Grasshopper" ID has learned his lessons well.

Which journals? Identify them, you idiot! Give names. And if you did indeed receive rejection letters, then tell us what they said in those rejection letters. Until you do that, then you are just bullshitting us yet again and we will be fully justified in considering you to be a fucking liar.Obviously those journals (if you had indeed submitted to them and aren't just lying to us) have standards for the quality of articles that they will consider. We've had a chance to see what you had submitted to them and it is pure crap! Why would you ever expect any respectable journal to publish such rancid crap as you had written? Why do you think that this is a "laughing out loud" situation? The only joke we all see here is you.What the hell is your problem? Where? How? Most certainly not in that link! We've looked at it already and it does not succeed in falsifying evolution! For that matter, it doesn't even succeed in defining evolution.How could you ever possibly falsify anything without knowing anything about what you are trying to falsify? Thinking as you do that you could succeed through near-total ignorance is sheer stupidity!And your "analysis" of descent with modification in which you insist that "modification" requires an external intelligence is just plain brainless. Science uses language to describe observations, whereas philosophy (and lawyering) uses language to change observations. As the lowest form of philosophy, theology also tries to redefine words in order to change reality. You are trying to practice theology, not science.And just what is all the nonsense about "Dislocated Parts" that you go on and on about for many pages suppose to describe? What the hell are you talking about?Even though the level of writing is greatly improved over your past efforts, you still make absolutely no fucking sense!And how could anyone expect any serious and reputable science journal to publish something that not only makes absolutely no fucking sense, but doesn't even have anything to do with science. 
I have been telling creationists this for decades:

quote:

---

If you honestly and truly want to fight evolution, then at least do it right! Learn everything you can about evolution and then attack it, not some stupid strawman caricature of it. And do so honestly and truthfully!

---

You are failing miserably. Your first step must be to learn what evolution actually is, not what you fantasize it to be.Just curious: are you seeing the same psychiatrist as Trump is for your malignant narcissism?

What you just did is what's called a non sequitur, a "reply" that has nothing whatsoever to do with that to which it is "replying." Also known as "changing the subject" or "running away."Here is your "reply": Besides being absolutely false and a completely empty boast indicating pathological delusions of grandeur, it has absolutely no bearing on my message which you falsely claim to be replying to (AKA "lying"): A "snow job" is when you try to hide the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about by subjecting your audience with an overabundance of verbiage and fancy sounding words including a lot of undefined terms. The imagery is that of burying your audience (typically your professor through an essay question on an exam) under a mountain of snow, hence "snow job" or "snowing someone". That's what you yourself constantly do here except you keep trying to bury us under a mountain of bullshit. We could say that you're working on your bullshit PhD ("Piled Higher and Deeper").You are markedly incapable of dazing anybody with your brilliance, since you have none. A 5-Watt light bulb is far more brilliant than you are. A glow-in-the-dark watch face outshines you.Therefore, you must resort to trying to baffle us with your bullshit. The reason that that won't work is because your bullshit is of such inferior quality. Perhaps if you didn't try to model yourself after Trump, especially in his malignant narcissism, you might have a chance to straighten yourself out, but sadly that is far beyond you.And let's face it, you have discovered nothing (quite the contrary, since you are avoiding the discovery that you are full of shit) nor are you any kind of discoverer, you have falsified nothing, and you are not in any sense of the word a scientist.You suffer from delusions of adequacy. Why do you keep posting that lie? What is wrong with you?

You "discovered" the wrong property. Instead, what is important is something's Googliness. If you cannot show how Googly something is, then you have nothing.You are obviously far too stupid to even detect something's Googliness let alone identify and describe it -- though of course Googliness is one of those properties that when you do attempt to describe it then you have lost it. 
So until you are able to start crawling out of your self-imposed deep hole of ignorance, stupidity, and non-Googly nature, please answer these simple questions: I will remind you that in order for you to falsify evolution, you must understand it! That means that you must know what evolution is and how evolution works. If you are ignorant of those two things, then there is no way you could ever possibly falsify evolution.Please stop ignoring General Sun Tzu's teaching and instead heed it:

quote:

---

Sun Tzu, Scroll III (Offensive Strategy):

31. Therefore I say: "Know the enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril.
32. When you are ignorant of the enemy but know yourself, your chances of winning or losing are equal.
33. If ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, you are certain in every battle to be in peril."

(Sun Tzu The Art of War, translation by Samuel B. Griffith, Oxford University Press, 1963)

---

You are ignorant both of your enemy and of yourself, so you are certain in every battle to be in peril. As has been demonstrated repeatedly and consistently on this forum.  Translation:

quote:

---

I challenge anybody to fight with me intellectually, to rediscover purple gremlin juice (which is what makes everything in the universe work), write in Zenodo, with experiment and compare with me. Anybody who could beat me on this topic of purple gremlin juice will surely make me stupid and moron, and I will say sorry to all and unpublish all my articles and books.

---

Your entire thesis and its execution are complete and utter bullshit. In order to refute bullshit, it is only necessary to expose that bullshit as bullshit. There is no requirement to create the same bullshit (eg, your purple gremlin juice) yourself. It is a very good idea to understand that bullshit as thoroughly as possible, but unfortunately it is in the nature of bullshit to be incomprehensible, especially to rational minds. Rather, bullshit can be understood only by the mind (or facsimile thereof) of the bullshitter himself, though even then even the bullshitter himself is unable to understand his own bullshit (you yourself being an obvious case of that situation, which is why you are unable to summarize your "falsification").And we have been trying argue with you intellectually, but unfortunately you have proven yourself to not be up to that challenge. It is very difficult for an intelligent person, such as we are, to argue intellectually with a willfully ignorant blithering idiot, such as you. Refer to the previous section: Face it. You are simply not up to the task.  Please stop lying!

I'm not asking you to. But following the tangent you just opened up, what precisely do you mean by not believing in Google?Whenever an atheist doesn't believe in God, theists and you creationists get into a huge tizzy demanding primarily that that atheist prove to them that God does not exist. That is what not believing in something means to them and to you as a creationist.That being the case, your not believing in Google can only mean that you believe that Google does not exist. Well, that makes you a far bigger fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be. Because despite your denial, reality is that Google does indeed exist. Not only do millions of people use Google all the time, but I have personally driven past a Google office building as have thousands of others. I have seen it with my own eyes, as have thousands of others. Deny reality all you want to, Google does exist.Reality does not care whether you believe in it or not. 
But you completely missed my point. "Googliness" is a magic word, a nonsense word that has no meaning but is used to make something sound more impressive. "Googliness" is exactly like the many magic words you use in your writings. Your many magic words are not defined and have no meaning, but you like the sound of them even though they say nothing. You could just as well replace them all with "Googliness" and not affect the meaning of your writings one bit; they would make neither more sense nor less sense, but rather the text would remain just as meaningless as before.

Where's Dog Pile when we need it? 
ABE:
My friend took her privacy very seriously to the point of using a VPN. Her search engine of choice was Duck Duck Go.Edited by dwise1, : ABE